Maternity Leave Can't Cost Women Their Jobs Or Promotions: Delhi High Court Directs Centre To Frame Safeguards
The Delhi High Court has held that the statutory protection available to women during maternity leave is not confined to continuity of employment or wages, but extends to their professional status, responsibilities, managerial authority and prospects of career advancement.
Justice Sachin Datta made the observations while disposing of a writ petition concerning a Chartered Accountant who had proceeded on maternity leave as a Manager-Accounting and, upon her return, was assigned work in the Treasury department after another employee had been placed in her previous role.
The Court held that a woman returning from maternity leave is ordinarily entitled to be restored to the post she held immediately before proceeding on leave. Where that post is genuinely unavailable for bona fide organisational reasons, she must be placed in a position as nearly equivalent as possible in terms of pay, grade, status, role, responsibilities, managerial authority and prospects for advancement.
At the same time, it clarified that nothing shall preclude a woman from herself seeking appropriate adjustment in her duties, hours, place or pattern of work or an alternate role, having regard to her post maternity circumstances and every such request shall be duly considered.
The Court examined Section 12(1) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which prohibits an employer from varying, to a woman's disadvantage, any conditions of her service during her statutorily protected absence.
It held that the expression "conditions of service" is not confined to termination of employment or financial benefits. It encompasses the substantive incidents of employment, including the nature and content of duties, grade and functional status, reporting hierarchy, supervisory responsibilities and entitlement to be considered for appraisal and promotion.
The Court further held that a woman returning from maternity leave is ordinarily entitled to the same position, and where that is genuinely impracticable, “the employer shall, before her resumption of duty, duly intimate the reasons for the non-availability of the post and the particulars of the alternative or equivalent position proposed to be offered to her.”
In the case at hand, the the employer maintained that the reassignment was necessitated by business needs and did not amount to a demotion.
The High Court however noted that there was no application of mind as to the duties that would be assigned to her upon her return; the question was taken up only few days before she was due to resume her duties and was addressed by enquiring of colleagues in two different departments whether they had “something” or “anything that might be assigned to her”.
The Court found that, shortly before her return, the employer had begun asking colleagues whether they had "something" or "anything" that could be assigned to her. The petitioner was not consulted before her previous position was filled or while alternatives were being considered, nor was she given a reasoned communication explaining what had happened to her position and what role would replace it.
The Court concluded that "maternity cannot be allowed to become a source of ignominy at the workplace" and directed the employer to pay ₹10 lakh as compensation, approximately equivalent to four months' salary. It also awarded ₹1.5 lakh as costs.
Before parting, the Court held that neither the Maternity Benefit Act nor the Code on Social Security, 2020 expressly provides a comprehensive framework governing post-maternity reintegration.
It therefore directed the Centre to frame rules or issue directions to ensure pregnancy-related accommodations, role protection, return-to-work parity, lactation support, timely grievance redressal, inspection standards, and safeguards against subtle workplace retaliation. The exercise is to be completed within six months.
Appearance: Ms. Parul Singh, Advocate along with Mr. Kunal Kher, Ms. Harshita Jain, Advocates. Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) and Ms. Simran Rao, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Ashish Dixit, CGSC along with Mr. Umar Hashmi, Mr. Gautam Yadav and Ms. Iqra Sheikh, Advocates. Ms. Mumtaz Bhalla and Ms. Prapti Allagh, Advocates for R-2
Case title: Rakhi Bisht v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 14785/2024